FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet,
S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke,
Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J.
Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Edwards appeals two of his consecutively imposed minimum
mandatory sentences. We affirm.
was sentenced for several crimes committed when he was
sixteen years of age. Two of the charges of which he was
convicted were attempted felony murder with a firearm (count
3) and robbery with a firearm (count 4). The trial court
originally sentenced Edwards to life in prison for counts 3
and 4, which included minimum mandatory sentences per count
subsequently obtained an evidentiary hearing for reevaluation
of his sentences based on Graham v. Florida, 560
U.S. 48 (2010). At that hearing, the trial court analyzed
section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2017), under which Edwards
was sentenced, then stated, "unfortunately, the statute
requires consecutive time, consecutive min-man time" for
counts 3 and 4. The court resentenced Edwards to concurrently
serve 45 years on counts 3 and 4, but re-imposed the minimum
mandatory sentences on the counts consecutively.
then filed a motion to correct sentencing error, arguing in
part that under Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989
(Fla. 2016),  "[c]onsecutive sentencing is not
mandatory under [section 775.087] under these circumstances
and the Court has the discretion to run counts 3 and 4
concurrently." The court entered an order reiterating
that the minimum mandatory sentences were to run
filed a motion for rehearing, again calling the court's
attention to Williams. Regarding the consecutively
imposed minimum mandatory sentences, the court stated,
"Counts 3 and 4 of this case each have a 20-year minimum
mandatory, which the Court is imposing consecutive to each
other for a total of 40 years. That ruling was not a
scrivener's error and Defendant has not argued or proven
that the statute does not permit it."
the record indicates that a trial court believed that
consecutive minimum mandatory sentences were required rather
than permissible under section 775.087, reversal for
resentencing is required. See James v. State, 43
Fla.L.Weekly D816 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 18, 2018); Mason v.
State, 210 So.3d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). It is
clear that at Edwards's initial resentencing, the trial
court believed that it was required to impose the minimum
mandatory sentences consecutively. However, Edwards presented
Williams to the court in both his motion to correct
sentencing error and motion for rehearing. The court's
order on rehearing stating that the imposition of consecutive
minimum mandatory sentences was not a scrivener's error
and that the sentence imposed was one permitted by statute,
in conjunction with the fact that the court had specifically
been provided Williams twice, persuades us that the
court was aware of its discretion to impose the sentences
concurrently, and instead chose to re-impose the sentences
consecutively. Accordingly, we affirm.